Reported / Citable
Background
On June 11, 2026, Miguel Guiza-Medina appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters in the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division. Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), the magistrate judge conducted a felony guilty plea hearing. The defendant was represented by counsel and advised of his rights pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
Guiza-Medina was charged with Count One of the indictment: illegal re-entry into the United States. The defendant entered this plea without a plea agreement, meaning no negotiated sentence or sentencing recommendation was reached with the government. The magistrate judge’s role was to ensure the plea met constitutional and statutory requirements before recommending acceptance to the presiding District Judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Guiza-Medina understood the nature of the charges and applicable criminal penalties, fully comprehended his constitutional and statutory rights, and knowingly waived those rights. The court determined that the guilty plea was entered freely and voluntarily with the advice of counsel, and that the defendant was competent to enter the plea.
Finding a sufficient factual basis for the plea and satisfying all Rule 11 requirements, the magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the guilty plea and entry of a judgment of guilt. The case was referred to the presiding United States District Judge for sentencing, as sentencing authority remains with the District Court. The defendant was advised that he may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States without a plea agreement
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, and constitutionally sound under Rule 11
- Sentencing remains pending before the District Judge
- All procedural safeguards protecting the defendant’s rights were followed
Why It Matters
This case reflects ongoing federal enforcement of immigration statutes, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes illegal re-entry after deportation or removal. The Western District of Texas frequently handles such matters given its proximity to the southern border. Strict compliance with Rule 11 procedures—ensuring guilty pleas are knowing, voluntary, and supported by adequate factual bases—protects defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights while maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
For practitioners, this decision underscores that magistrate judges may take felony guilty pleas, though they cannot sentence; sentencing authority remains exclusively with District Judges. The case demonstrates the procedural rigor courts apply to guilty pleas in immigration-related offenses, preventing later claims of involuntary or unknowing entry of plea.